The 2008 Finals were amazing. They had an amazing match-up of the two premiere franchises over the history of the league, and the two best teams in their respective conferences this season.
It was a classic "great offense versus great defense" series. It had stirring come-backs, controversial injuries, surprising heroes, and for all us Lakers and/or Kobe haters, a most satisfying finish. (Yes, I have a strong anti-Lakers and anti-Kobe bias...I admit it.)
It also was quite informational. We learned the mathematically impossible could actually happen, the experts know no more than anyone else, and recent popular debates were even more ridiculous than we thought they were.
1) Sam Cassell is a mathematical impossibility
Math instructors nationwide looked on in awe and disbelief as again and again every mathematical theory long held to be an unalterable truth was dispelled as Fast Sam cranked up five shots within the first four times he touched the ball. The blur of motion as he touched the rock only to send it arcing towards the rim.
When asked if he was aware the traditional point guard role included occasional passes, Sam replied, "I passed it to them through the rim." Fortunately for Boston, the needed offense in the first couple of games and that is certainly something he is happy to provide.
2) Expert is easy to define: An Ex is a has-been and a spurt is jut a drip under pressure
Prior to the series a huge number of experts calmly predicted LA to win in anywhere from four to six games. Few and far between were those who predicted a Boston victory.
Of course, hind sight being 20-20, there were many signs the series might end differently: The results of the regular season games between the two, Boston's record against the Western Conference, the way Boston played in Detroit, taking two out of three.
In the end, it just demonstrates once more that the difference between the television experts and the average fan is money...the experts get paid to be wrong.
3) Bryant was not and is not the greatest ever.
Despite my anti-Bryant bias, even I will admit he is unquestionably one of the two best players in the NBA today. It would be tough to choose between he and LeBron James at the moment, though it also can not be argued Bryant has done it longer and more consistently. Certainly no team would refuse either player.
But these Finals reinforced the fact that, as good as he is, Bryant is not in the class of the best players ever.
For example, one cannot imagine a Jordan or Russell led team giving up a 24 point lead, or a Jordan being held to fewer points than shots multiple times. There were exceptions, but far too much of the time he was forced into contested jump shots and kept away from the basket.
It is a sign of his talent that he hit a number of those jumpers and there were individual quarters where he was dominant...but there were entire halves where he was a non-factor.
I have already argued that statistically he does not belong in the conversation, and he fails to measure up in Championship totals as well. Now we have seen that he also does not have the drive that separated say...a Michael Jordan from the other players of his generation.
Today's Must Reads
To Bryant's credit (when asked about the Jordan comparisons) he said something along the lines of, "Why do you have to ask that? Why can't you just let me be me." I actually moved slightly towards liking him.
Bryant is a great player, but his performance in these Finals once more reinforces the distance between him and the greatest of all time.
4) Paul Pierce is better than we thought he was
Pierce certainly has some issues. He is an indifferent ball handler who at times makes stunning turnovers in key situations...see Game Five for example...and at times struggles with important free throws.
With that said, he also has a flair for the dramatic, a will to win, and whatever the truth of past behavior, he has learned to be a great teammate. Like everyone else, I heard rumors of his teammate snobbery. I cannot say if they were so. I cannot say if he refused to share the ball in the past.
I can say he stepped up on the biggest stage and, even when struggling offensively, found other ways to contribute. He was supportive of every teammate, and he showed sides to his game that I suspect many fans outside of Boston did not know he had. He is a capable defender and a solid cheerleader when he is on the bench.
5) The myth of the shortened bench being better
In the first few games Doc Rivers followed conventional wisdom. Leon Powe, Sam Cassell, and a small dose of PJ Brown made up the bench. Boston looked tired late and the Lakers defense looked fairly decent.
But when he expanded his bench to bring in Eddie House, James Posey, and Tony Allen the series completely changed complexion. Gone were the looks of exhaustion, the running out of gas, and the stiff Lakers defense.
And everyone contributed. At various times each guy came up big. Apparently players who contribute in the regular season do have post-season value after all...
6) Phil Jackson is not as good and Doc Rivers is not as bad a coach as we were told
It is not possible to dispute what Phil Jackson has done. He is unquestionably a great coach who has won with a variety of styles.
Remember the classic Bulls-Suns series where games were won by first team to 120? And then the series against the Jazz where it was more like first team to 90? He has guided a variety of styles of players and had great success.
But against the Celtics he was out coached, out motivated, and outmatched by Doc Rivers.
It was Rivers who adjusted his strategy, who was willing to take a chance with guys he had not been using in the playoffs, who adjusted to the way the games were called, and put in the right players at the right times.
In this year, in this series, Rivers was the better coach and that is something I doubt anyone believed going into the series.
7) It doesn't always work, but sometimes having three Hall Of Fame players is okay
A lot of teams have had three great scorers and gone nowhere. Remember those Sonics teams with Dale Ellis, Xavier McDaniel and Tom Chambers where all three of them scored 20+ every game? They never won a thing.
What was different about the Celtics? I don't believe this is a rhetorical question. The Sonics of yore had a decent bench, scored in bunches, and even had some success on the boards.
The unity of the Celtics...and more importantly, the devotion to defense, a concept those Sonics had heard of but never experienced, made the difference. Yeah, that is hardly a brilliant revelation...but it let me get off a cheap joke so I guess we will stick with it.
8) Sometimes players become associated with new places real quick
At the beginning of Game Six the scoreboard had a quote, a picture of Garnett screaming something, and his initials "KG". And I had no problem with that...he has truly become a Celtic. Weird.
Sometimes when a player is at one location for the bulk of their career and then goes to a new team, it takes a while to associate them.
Walter Davis played for the Blazers...but he was a Sun. Karl Malone spent a season or 2 in L.A. but he will forever be associated with the Jazz. Gary Payton played for the Lakers and won a title with the Heat but does anyone not primarily associate him with the Sonics?
Yet Garnett, a guy who spent the bulk of his career in Minnesota, and even had some pretty good teams there, has already become a Celtic. That is just bizarre. How did he gain such a strong association so quickly?
I could argue it was his dedication to defense or his role in bringing together three players who had always been "the man" who each gave a little something in terms of individual production to get a little something in terms of a Title.
I don't know, there is just something undefinable about how players become associated with teams. I will never really see a Clyde Drexler as a Rocket or a Scottie Pippen as a Blazer...they were too much a part of their respective first teams, communities, and team history.
It would seem Garnett was more integral to the history of the T-Wolves franchise...yet I already think of him as a Celtic. Amazing what a dominating season and a championship can do.
Last but not least) We learned that watching the Finals can be fun even with a defensive team in there.
I tried to watch the Cavaliers and Spurs but the defense there turned it into a soccer match...long periods of boredom interspersed with brief moments of sleep.
I have no problem with defensive play as long as there is something entertaining about it. The Lakers had spurts of forcing turnovers which led to baskets, as did the Celtics.
But the defense never slowed the game to a point where there were several minute stretches where you did not feel like you missed anything if you stepped away for a few moments.
Great job, NBA. This year, you got it right.
comments (6) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
I'm a HUGE Lakers / Kobe fan and the "Lakers" flat out got beat.............badly. Bottom line is that the team rolled over and didn't appear to be playing with aggression. It wasn't Kobe's fault, it wasn't Phil's fault..............it was the "Lakers" fault for losing and the A*S-KICKING mentallity of the Celtics for winning. They are the champs and that's all there is to it. A few Hall of Fame veterans and a hungry team was the answer. If Jordan was in Kobe's place during these Finals, the Celtics still would have won, so let's leave that argument alone. Thankfully the Lakers are still very young and I wouldn't be surprised if they were the youngest overall team to make it to the Finals. They will be back with hopefully a healthy Bynum and will return to the Finals at least a couple more times while Kobe is there. And when the Lakers win, I won't be saying it was because of Kobe just the same as I'm not going to place him the spotlight for losing. But for the record of my opinion, I agree that Kobe did not place his best and had a horrible Finals.
2 months ago
Lakers lost because they are not in the same category as the Celtics. They got all the calls in the Western Conf. Playoffs. The Nuggets did not stand a chance because they got 100% of every call. They just gave up because they could not play 8 on 5. They flat out cheated the Jazz. They play tough defense like the Celtics but they got called for every touch foul possible. Kobe was shooting 20FTA again. They cheated in game 4 versus the Spurs. EVERYONE saw that foul at the end. They was not better than any East team in the Finals. The Hawks, especially the Cavs, and Pistons was a lot better than the Fakers. This proves that Kobve does not and never need to be on any defensive team. He is always first team and he doesn't guard anyone. He could not guard Ray Allen or Paul Pierce. They embarrassed him the entire series. Lebron played terrible the first two games but he was unstoppable the last 5 games. The Celtics could not guard him and he was hitting 3 and dunking everywhere. Kobe was shut down, he looked so bad out there, and people compare him to Jordan. Jordan would have not got embarrassed like Kobe did. I guess this series solves the big question of who is the best player in the league, which is Lebron. Lebron out played Kobe in the regular season and versus the Celtics in the playoffs. And the crazy question about Kobe and Jordan. People say Kobe is bigger, but they the same size, Kobe is stronger but Jordan is stronger and bigger. Kobe is a better shooter, watch the 2008 Finals, Kobe shot brick after brick or the 2004 Finals, same bricks. Kobe is good but not great. Plus, Lebron stats are better than Kobe and Kobe did not deserve MVP. That was a PITTY MVP. The MVP should have went to the best player on the best team (KG) or the best stats (LBJ) or the player who turned their entire program around (CP3) where does Kobe fit in?
2 months ago
The bottom line in this season is, Lakers sucks. Celtics is the very best this season coz' they were able to beat Pistons. As we all know that the Pistons had the best defensive play, but the Celticswas able to beat the Pistons. If you'll remember Game 3 when Lakers was ahead 24 points, the Celtics was able to recover and won the game on the 4th quarter. If you say that the Lakers is a great team they could have done the same on Game 6 but they did not and they can not because they really suck as a team with Kobe as the captain.
2 months ago
I have to say I would disagree with the latter two comments. Yes, the Celtics were a better team...but that is not to say the Lakers were not a good team as well. They did, after all, win the Western Conference, and any team that does that in a year like this is a team to be reckoned with and, as much as I don't want to see it, I agree with Shane that they will be a team to be reckoned with for years to come.
As for them cheating...the Nuggets are not in the same class as any other team in the Western Conference that made the playoffs. I would not have been surprised to see them win 1 or 2 games but they were badly outclassed in that series. I must admit, that might be the first time I have heard of them playing tough defense. Camby is a beast and no doubt but the Nuggets as a whole are...well..porous is a word I have heard used. The Jazz had their chances...I am not real sure where the "cheating" assertion came from as I did not watch the series. I wanted both teams to lose...and yes, the League, not the Lakers, admitted to a mistake with no foul being called on the Fisher/Barry play. Didn't matter, the Spurs were outclassed in that series.
Finally, saying Bryant is not a good defender...when he was put on Rondo it all but took Rondo out of the series for a time. He was actually benched in favor of House and Posey because their shooting would keep Bryant from roaming and causing havoc. He did get torched on occasion but he also made plays. How many times did he strip Pierce?
Saying the Hawks (!), a sub-.500 Eastern Conference team is better than the Lakers...sorry, but that is not close to realistic. If the Hawks and Lakers play 18 times the Lakers win 12 - 16 of them, they are that much better. I may not like them but I try to at least be realistic about it. See Shane, for example...Lakers fan who saw a tougher, hungrier team.
I would like nothing better than to see the Lake show go 0-82 next year with Bryant shooting about 20% and getting bood out of town. However, I expect to see them pretty near the Western Conference Finals at the least. Insert sad face here...
2 months ago
Kobe shut down Rondo by not playing him. Thats not great defense...Kobe got steals in this series because of help defense...Not man to man defense. You're right, he was able to roam and cause Havoc, thats because he wasnt playing D....He left Rondo alone just like Delonte did with the Cavs series
2 months ago
Mahh babbi Kobe is still the best. Since people are hating on the Lakers it's time for me to hate to. Now I am a ANTI-CELTIC, I hate them, the only one I kinda like and I think he shoulda won MVP is Ray Allen not ugly Paul Pierce. It's okay we lost. They won. But don' t be hating kobe got 3 rings already in there's always next yr to win a title. The Celtics needed it, I woulda got out dere in spank the lakers to if I was the Celtics who haven't won a championship in 22 YEARS!!!!! So congrads Celtics for a must needed win. I am not worried It's still Laker - Basketball with mahh heart throbe Kobe Bryant, n Lamar Odom , Paul Gasol, Derek Fisher and the rest of 'em
write a new comment